[Az-Geocaching] Problems with location based identifier

[Brian Cluff]

ken@highpointer.com wrote:
> I don't think that will work very well.   You have correctly pointed out 
> that large states may use up their allotment of numbers relatively soon, 
> while small states may never use up their allotment of numbers.  For 
> example, Colorado used to assign license plate numbers based on the 
> county that the vehicle was registered in, but abandoned that policy 
> because urban counties have populations over 100,000 and thus were using 
> up their allotted numbers, whereas some rural counties have under 1,000 
> people and thus used only a small percentage of their alloted characters.

I assume you are talking about a license plate with 7 characters on it, 
with 2 characters pointing out the county and the other 5 for the 
license plate number.
If they had gone with the base 36 number like we have been talking about 
they could have had 60,466,200 people per county.  That even leaves 
pleanty of room for taking out all the 4 letter word combinations as 
well as the zero/letter O problem.
Unlike the geocaching, they would have had to have done it right the 
first time.... although they could have easily handed out license plates 
that fell between the decimal numbers... unless they really wanted them 
in order for some reason.

Brian Cluff
Team Snaptek